Comment: "Injustice" is not a principle. It is the lack thereof.

(See in situ)

"Injustice" is not a principle. It is the lack thereof.

"For justice to be done people have to be involved. Courts are the best way to do so."

This is telling.

You seem to be admitting that for justice to exist, people have to in fact arrest others on suspicion or accusation, thus violating NAP; they must subject them to trial and verdict by group consensus, and they have to sentence punishment.

I agree with you, but all of these violate NAP, and all represent the principle of consensus as valid for denying individuals liberty or for punishing them.

Once you've granted that principle as valid, you are stuck with it.

It seems you [both] are confusing justice with injustice, or at least focusing on the tiny sliver of "justice" that is actually the correction of injustice. Even that style of justice is but a sliver of a sliver, an attempted return to principle.

No one needs to be arrested or subject to trial for justice to be done. Justice exists in the absence of its violation.

Yesterday for example, I awoke, at some food, got together with friends, laughed at their jokes, they laughed at mine, I ate more food and went to bed. I harmed no one yesterday, and no one harmed me. I experienced mutual benefit with all I encountered. Justice was served all day. I served justice as justice served me. Justice "existed" with no arrest or trial.